[…]
Asked […] if Estonia would be willing to host Britain’s future fleet of F-35A fighters, defence minister Hanno Pevkur replied, “I’m always open. The door is always open for allies.”
The comments follow the incursion of three Russian MiG-31s into Estonian skies last week. The aircraft, flying without transponders or flight plans, remained over the Gulf of Finland for twelve minutes before being escorted out by Italian F-35s from Ämari airbase.
[…]
Western leaders urged caution over escalating the stand-off. Mr Pevkur said NATO’s response should be “proportionate” and decided “case-by-case.” Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, struck a harder line, declaring: “We will shoot down any flying objects when they violate our territory and fly over Poland. There is absolutely no discussion over that.”
[…]
For Estonia, NATO’s smallest frontline state, the latest incursion [of Russian drones] was a stark reminder of its reliance on allied air power. “The question is not whether Russia will try again,” one official said, “but how we will respond.”
But my point was that this wouldn’t even be that bad. It’s an unlikely scenario, but I could see the US just abandoning some nuclear bombs at the front in case of a sudden invasion. Russia having a few more American nukes doesn’t really shift the power balance. You could brush that under the rug.
On the other hand, imagine 5000 US troops stationed there, with heavy equipment with which they can’t just run away from a sudden invasion. So you either defend them or you have to deal with the political fallout of 5000 dead soldiers. Much harder to brush under the rug.
You know what? Why not both? While I see your point and agree with it, I can also understand the symbolic value of the nukes. I think it’s only fair if we provide what gives the countries most exposed and at risk the largest sense of security.